What do you think will be the consequences of the oil disaster?

Well, the colossal oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico is now officially the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, and will likely forever change the way America thinks about offshore drilling. BP's latest technique is actually producing some results, but the relief wells which will supposedly bring down the pressure enough to completely cap the leak aren't expected to be finished for months.

In the meantime, the oil (along with the chemical dispersant, which is even more toxic) is destroying one of the world's richest marine ecosystems, dissolving the barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana, and devastating the Florida tourist industry. Even once the oil stops flowing, the long-term effects of this ecological nightmare will probably continue long after we're all dead.

So...any thoughts on this?

All I can say is that Bill Nye is upset about the oil spill. He was on TV.

I kind of forgot about that one, but all the same, this one is supposed to talk about it more generally than that topic.

Fawfulfan said:

Well, the colossal oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico is now officially the worst environmental disaster in history

Click to expand...

Wrong. Worst environment disaster in the United States.

Ixtoc spill in Mexico was worse. When Saddam Hussein blew up the oil rigs in Iraq at the end of the 1992 Gulf War was about 10x+ worse. Both of these areas are looking pretty good now.

I don't know about the consequences of the actual spill itself, but I can tell you a lot about the consequences of the media making this sound like we're all doomed. Seafood prices have dropped like a rock. A lot of fishermen and people in the seafood business are sitting around with perfectly fine food rotting, looking at going out of business because nobody is buying seafood anymore, thinking it is tained with oil. People are not looking to vacation on coastal areas, thinking the shores are doused with oil and a putrid smell fills the air, when neither is true (unless you like camping out in Lousiana's marshes).

Living down here, I've seen the economic impact when we wouldn't have even KNOWN about the spill if we weren't told about it. Crisis, crisis, doom, gloom. Keep watching our station so we can boost ratings, allowing us to charge more to advertisers. Suck it, media. People talk about evil corporations. News media is a corporation too, you know.

..The same as past oil spills? There were oil spills much worse than this before, and there will probably be worse ones as time goes on. The only major difference I see between this one and ones past is that the media is greatly over exaggerating this spill by taking advantage of the gullible minds of impressionable North Americans(Of which there are many),and that in turn is causing some problems economically.

That certainly seems to be the case. It's hardly new for the media to stir up a panic over something that in reality isn't quite as devastating (although this one seems to be producing some horrible effects). A good example is all the buzz over shark attacks in 2001. In fact, shark attack deaths were below average that year (and injuries were about average)

Look what I found...

olol

media is greatly over exaggerating this spill by taking advantage of the gullible minds of impressionable North Americans(Of which there are many),and that in turn is causing some problems economically.

Click to expand...

Even schools are teaching what the news say about this disaster. Sadly, I was one of the gullible minds that believed in this.

Always check your sources and your best friends, cousins, friends, uncles, cousins, psychologists, grandma, is not a reliable source.

Oil leak in the GoM? when did this happen?

Chaos Knux said:

Oil leak in the GoM? when did this happen?

Click to expand...

April 22nd...

It'll get cleaned up, the ocean ecosystems will restore themselves in a few years, and we'll all move on with our lives. Unless the left-wing nuts have their way and use this as a way to push their political agendas on the "evil" corporations of America that are somehow vaguely doing something wrong, like causing global warming or oppressing the poor or are making money off their business.

Rob said:

It'll get cleaned up, the ocean ecosystems will restore themselves in a few years, and we'll all move on with our lives. Unless the left-wing nuts have their way and use this as a way to push their political agendas on the "evil" corporations of America that are somehow vaguely doing something wrong, like causing global warming or oppressing the poor or are making money off their business.

Click to expand...

If a company encourages the use of a fuel that is obviously problematic then I'd consider it's actions morally wrong and "evil". Petroleum use has proven to be environmentally irresolvable on several occasions. In 1989 an Exxon oil tanker near Alaska spilled an estimated minimum of 10.8 million US gallons into the ocean. Many microbial populations were displaced or destroyed while cleaning rocky coves along the coast. Plankton were one of the species displaced in this process and is a basis of the coastal marine food chain. Many larger animals died immediately including sea otters, river otters, harbor seals, bald eagles, and orcas. A team of scientists at the University of North Carolina have estimated it could take 30 years for the coastal ecosystem to completely recover. Seeing as the Deepwater Horizon leak is over spilling 4,200,000 US gallons per day I'd guess it'll take a lot longer for the oceanic and coastal ecosystems to be repaired. LOL @ "restore themselves in a few years". 11 people also died on that drilling rig. Crude Oil is a finite resource as well and in less than a century it will be very scarce. What will we do then? How will we get to work and the grocery store? I'd say that corporations leading us to a gloomy future in exchange for present day "profit" would be "evil". It should be obvious at this point that cars dumping tons of CO2 into our atmosphere cannot be a good thing either. Grow up, take responsibility, stop ignoring the future, and learn to accept changes.

akirahedgehog said:

Crude Oil is a finite resource as well and in less than a century it will be very scarce. What will we do then? How will we get to work and the grocery store?

Click to expand...

In the words of the most cliche Ben 10 character ever:

Professor Paradox said:

It's called "walking", my dear.

Click to expand...

A team of scientists at the University of North Carolina have estimated it could take 30 years for the coastal ecosystem to completely recover. Seeing as the Deepwater Horizon leak is over spilling 4,200,000 US gallons per day I'd guess it'll take a lot longer for the oceanic and coastal ecosystems to be repaired. LOL @ "restore themselves in a few years".

Click to expand...

Sounds like Internet copypasta. The place where the Valdez spill happened looks like it's fine now.

11 people also died on that drilling rig.

Click to expand...

And nobody cared about them. Yet when a soldier dies in Iraq while Bush is President you hear about it for the next week. Lots of soldiers have died since Obama's been President. Do you hear about them? No matter who is in office, it should be a tragedy.

Crude Oil is a finite resource as well and in less than a century it will be very scarce. What will we do then? How will we get to work and the grocery store? I'd say that corporations leading us to a gloomy future in exchange for present day "profit" would be "evil". It should be obvious at this point that cars dumping tons of CO2 into our atmosphere cannot be a good thing either. Grow up, take responsibility, stop ignoring the future, and learn to accept changes.

Click to expand...

By then we'll have new technology for getting around. Necessity is the mother of all invention. Right now, it's not a necessity, so it's not going to happen. Too many people have a car that runs on petrol. Do you seriously expect everyone to go buy a new non-petrol vehicle? What about poor people who can only afford an old car? Are they supposed to no longer be able to get to their work, school, etc.? As long as there is demand, there are going to be companies to supply that demand, just like with any other product or service.

Besides, if BP didn't have as much money as they do, do you think they'd be able to afford plugging the leak and paying for the cleanup? And if the government was the one drilling for oil, do you really think the lawyers would have ANY chance of squeezing any compensation money out of them? At least with a private company you can have recourse.

If people so concerned about the environment didn't force them to drill so far off shore, this leak would probably have been plugged in a week. How is your environment now?

Actually, people do care about the deaths on the oil platform. The government is considering prosecuting BP executives on charges of murdering those 11 people. Personally, I think a murder charge would be completely ridiculous--"manslaughter" would be much more accurate, since their deaths came out of negligence and not premeditated malice of any kind--but yes, people do care.

akirahedgehog said:

If a company encourages the use of a fuel that is obviously problematic then I'd consider it's actions morally wrong and "evil". Petroleum use has proven to be environmentally irresolvable on several occasions.

Click to expand...

It should be obvious at this point that cars dumping tons of CO2 into our atmosphere cannot be a good thing either.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's really appropriate to frame this as an ethical problem. The reason why the demand for oil remains high (and why companies that extract oil continue to thrive), despite it's harmful effects on the environment, is because the alternatives are too expensive for most people. Every energy source has its pros and its cons, and one of the pros of oil is its current relatively low cost.

When solar panels and other cleaner energy sources become competitive with oil, you can bet that more consumers will flock to them, given their other benefits.

That said, I fail to understand why nuclear power hasn't really caught on in the United States. I can understand the stigma nuclear power has recieved after the Six Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents, but those are two exceptions in the largely safe operation of hundreds of nuclear power plants worldwide. I personally think it'd be a great temporary solution to burning oil and coal, at least until the aforementioned alternative fuels come down in price.

---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

SSNTails said:

Sounds like Internet copypasta. The place where the Valdez spill happened looks like it's fine now.

Click to expand...

I'd hate to call you out, SNNTails, but what exactly do you mean when when you write "looks like it's fine now"? That the landscape and seascape visually looks as if it's returned to it's original state? That wildlife numbers have returned to their previous numbers? That the typical chemical contents of the water and it's dependent organisms have returned to substances and levels existing before the spill? I'm not sure given that the article you cited has little explicit information regarding the consequences of the Valdez spill. In fact, looking at Wikipedia's "Exxon Valdez oil spill" article right now, there's information that is seemingly contradictory to your conclusion.

Wikipedia said:

Almost 20 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far longer than expected. The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to 30 years to recover. Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies. However, a study from scientists from the NOAA concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.

Click to expand...

Not being intimate with the study of marine environments, I don't know how substantial or trivial the findings of the University of North Carolina team or NOAA are. Regardless, can you explain what exactly you meant by "looks like it's fine now"? It's terribly ambiguous wording, anyways.

Aah, there's been worse. This isn't going to affect anything at all. They just make it look bad.

Wombatwarlord777 said:

I'd hate to call you out, SNNTails, but what exactly do you mean when when you write "looks like it's fine now"? That the landscape and seascape visually looks as if it's returned to it's original state?

Click to expand...

Pretty much what you said, that it looks like the landscape/seascape has pretty much returned to normal, simply from a layman standpoint. I'm sure there are some lingering issues, but you have to consider the following:

*) Oil is always seeping out of cracks in the ocean floor naturally.
*) There are microorganisms that eat and break down oil.
*) Prince William Sound is in a very northern region, where it is cold, restricting the types of wildlife that may inhabit the area that would otherwise help it restore quicker. It is also a very small, tightly enclosed bay-ish area. The Gulf of Mexico is way way bigger, has currents running through it, and much warmer, likely containing more organisms that feed on oil seepage without the cold to restrict restoration of life.

A lot of people seem to forget or were never taught that before machinery, oil seeped out of the ground in random places by itself and it was considered an annoyance. And super-long ago, they formed tar pits. If it's supposedly so bad for the earth, maybe we're doing it a favor by using it up? It certainly didn't destroy the planet before we discovered how to use it...